a course to justifie God herein by saying that God hath mercy on none but in respect to their former good works Nay much more contradictions for as much as no good works in the state of nature or grace can bee meritorious of reward But sins may bee and are truely meritorious of punishment In the 22 vers there is not the least mention of obduration much lesse any mention of the cause thereof least of all any reversing of the former cause expressed ver 18. and justifyed ver 20. from the authority of God the Creator having power to make his creatures of what fashion hee will and substituting a new in the place thereof And although all that are vessels of wrath are sinners and consequently deserve punishment yet obduration in opposition to shewing mercy consisting in the deniall of saving grace is no punishment for as much as God doth not thereby withdraw any saving grace from them which formerly they injoyed and as for inflicting evill that hath no place in obduration for as much as all confesse that God doth not obdurate any man infundendo malitiam but non infundendo gratiam Neither is it sin either originall or actuall that which constitutes a man a vessell of wrath as a vessell of wrath is opposite to a vessell of mercy For sin both originall and actuall is incident to the Elect as well as to the Reprobate but like as Gods shewing mercy makes a man a vessell of mercy so Gods denyall of mercy finally constitutes a vessell of wrath exposing him to finall infidelity or impenitency which sin alone is not found in any of the elect It seems you think they are fitted to destruction by themselves as if vasa the vessels did separate and not Herus the Master rather Sin alone makes a man obnoxious to condemnation as deserving it and so there is sin in the best of Gods children to drive them to confesse that if the Lord should bee extream to mark what is done amisse none were able to abide it Yet the sin of the Reprobates you confesse God could prevent and not preventing it yet could cure it by the blood of Christ so that though sin bee granted to bee a cause hereof yet a more originall cause though nothing culpable must bee acknowledged to bee the deniall of Grace as our Saviour budgeth not to professe to the faces of some Yee therefore heare not my words because yee are not of God and Joh. 12. 40. Therefore they could not beleeve because Esaias saith Hee hath blinded their eyes and hardned their hearts that they should not see with their eyes and understand with their hearts and should bee converted and I should heale them All this while have I maintained the safenesse of that exposition which interpreteth Gods hatred of Esau of a lesse degree of love and the same word is also used in the same sense But yet so understand mee I conceive this lesse degree of Love to have somewhat in it of the true nature of Hatred For as the nature of Love standeth in affecting communion with one and communicating good unto him So likewise the nature of hatred stands in the contrary to this either in affecting separation from one or inflicting evill on him or at least in not vouchsafing communion or communicating good unto him So is a man said to hate his brother that will not vouchsafe him such an office of brotherly communion as that hee will communicate a kindly reproofe to him for his sin Now I would easily grant that before Esau had done good or evill God so hated him as that hee did not communicate to him that fellowship with Christ which by Gods election and donation the members of the body have with him their head in Gods account even before the world was Neither did God vouchsafe that plentifull communication of his free grace unto him as might in time by a reall actuall power draw him to Christ and to live by him Yea God was pleased to set him in a state further remote and separate from him then his elect brother Even in the estate of a servant to the elect and in stead of communicating free grace hee purposed to deale with him rather according to his works by a covenant of Justice For both these are implyed in Gods putting of Esau into the state of a servant First the denyall of such grace and fatherly love to him as is reserved for children Secondly the not refusing of him to just dealing such as is due to servants according to their works I look to receive from you some proofe that the word Hatred is used in the same sense to wit to signifie a lesse degree of Love for to my judgement it is a wilde interpretation for in this sense God might bee said to hate every one of Gods elect excepting Christ for hee loves them all in a lesse degree then hee loved Christ and one in a lesse degree then another according as degrees of Love attributed to God are to bee estimated that is not quoad affectum for undoubtedly there are no degrees to bee found in the nature of God but quoad affectum and undoubtedly God alots one degree of grace to one and another degree to another and as hee deales with them in communicating of grace so in the communicating of Glory also Love and hatred undoubtedly are opposite contrarily and not onely contradictorily And because quot modis dicitur unum oppositorum tot modis dicitur alterum as love of complacency consists in delectation so hatred opposite is of displicency or aversation And as love of beneficence consisteth in wishing or doing good So hatred opposite consists in wishing or doing evill to another Here at length I observe the place you stand upon to prove that hatred in holy Scripture doth sometimes signifie a lesse degree of love and that seemes to bee Levit. 19. 17. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart thou shalt plainely rebuke thy brother and suffer him not to sin And to serve your turn in this interpretation you shape a correspondent practise of Love consisting in vouchsafing communion which unlesse it bee a communion of reproofe is nothing to your purpose who desire to shape hatred in contradiction thereunto And yet hatred all conceive to bee much more then not to love But were all this yeelded unto you yet doth it fall short of your purpose for albeit hee that forbears to reprove his brother doth him harm yet if hee doe not intend him harm hee cannot bee said to hate him For in Scripture phrase hatred denotes an intention to harm as Deut. 4. 42. Where wee reade that certain Cities were appointed That the slayer might fly unto which had killed his Neighbour at unawares and hated him not in times past But if you measure hatred by the harm done why should the sparing of reproofe to preserve a brother from sin and consequently from incurring the wrath of God bee
Esau that hee should serve Jacob before hee had done good or evill The Hebrew and Greek word signifie neither to create nor bring into the world but to preserve or to cause to stand to stirre up or to advance which presupposeth Pharaoh already born yea and of such a Spirit that if God preserve him and stirre him up hee was become a fit subject upon whom God might shew his power in his hardning and overthrow Otherwise God might as well bee said to condemn Pharaoh out of his absolute will without all respect to sin as to shew his power in hardning of him without all respect to sin Hardning when it falls upon the creature is both the height of his sin and depth of his misery and therefore is it as prejudiciall to Gods justice to inflict it without respect of sin going before and to the creature as dangerous to undergoe it as condemnation to hell it self Hell hath no greater torment then an heart desperately hardned under the wrath curse and judgement of God which was Pharaohs case But consider Pharaoh not in the estate of Esau as having done neither good nor evill but in the state wherein he stood when God gave out his Oracle concerning him that for this cause hee stirred him up to shew his power in his hardning and overthrow and then may I easily grant more then is required viz. When God purposed to passe by him not only in communicating grace and glory unto him but also to fall upon him in his utmost wrath as well in outward strange calamity as especially in spirituall judgements hardnesse of heart and blindnesse of minde to his utter perdition In the former part you declined a direct answer to the question proposed for whereas the question proposed was touching the communicating of grace and glory you not adventuring to maintaine a purpose of God to communicate grace and glory to them whom you call the world of mankinde onely maintain a purpose in God at least you seem so to doe of communicating life and glory some other way then out of grace But with what advantage to your cause that hath been carryed I have already considered Now you seem to answer the question looking it directly in the face For though you acknowledge such a purpose in God concerning Pharaoh to wit of passing him by in communicating grace and glory yet the cause you say is not alike of Esau when Gods Oracle was given out concerning him hee being not then born as of Pharaoh when the Oracle here spoken of was given out concerning him hee being then a fit subject upon whom God might shew his power in his hardning and overthrow Yet here againe you decline the question For the question was not whether Pharaoh at that time when God said For this cause I have raised thee up c. were a fitter subject for God to shew his power in his hardning and overthrow then Esau was while yet hee was in his mothers wombe But whether God had not a purpose to passe by Esau as touching the communicating of grace and glory even before hee was born which hee had concerning Pharaoh at that time before spoken of which that hee had I prove thus It was said of Esau before hee was born that God hated him What more could bee said of Pharaoh to expresse his alienation from him Secondly look how you qualifie the hatred of God to Esau in the same manner may it bee qualifyed towards Pharaoh even at this time you speak of For Gods hatred towards Esau you qualifie thus God had a purpose to deale with him according to his works But say I even then when God professed of Pharaoh saying For this cause have I raised thee up c. God had a purpose to deale with him according to his works Thirdly if therefore God had no such purpose towards Esau namely to shew his power in his hardning and overthrow because Esau was not yet born then belike God had no such purpose towards Pharaoh himself while Pharaoh was not yet born But this is utterly untrue for as much as Gods purposes are eternall and not temporall And in like manner it may bee proved that if ever God had the like purpose towards Esau to wit after his preferring a messe of pottage before his birthright or at any other time it followeth that God had the same purpose towards Esau even before hee was born for Gods purposes are not temporall but eternall Lastly as for the difference you put between them besides the question one being a more fit subject for God to shew his power in his hardning and overthrow then the other I grant it to bee true in part as touching the hardning of them For obduration presupposeth a man of such ripenesse of years as to have the use of reason But this hinders not but that God might at the same time have a purpose to harden him in his time as Pharaoh in his time And yet why I pray was not Pharaoh as fit a subject for God to shew his power in changing his heart as well as Saul was in the middest of his bloody persecutions of the Church of God And what naturall man such as I presume are all those whom you call the world of mankinde is not a fit subject for God to shew his power in his hardning and overthrow though hee bee never so morall yea as morall as Trajan who raised one persecution or Marcus Antoninus Philosophus who raised another or as Aurelianus who raised a third It is true if God will move any man unto courses contrary to his corrupt inclination and not give him grace to master that corrupt inclination that man whatsoever hee bee shall bee a fit subject for God to shew his power in his hardning yea and overthrow also if it please him But if God move any man never so contrariously to his corrupt inclination and withall give him grace to master that corrupt inclination of his hee shall bee a fit subject for God to shew the power of his grace in his conversion and salvation You speak much of hardning even according unto pleasure without giving your Reader any explication of the words whereby hee might understand your meaning wherein obduration consists Surely obduration is either the denyall of grace or whatsoever it bee it is alwaies joyned with the denyall of grace as I take it But in very different manner I confesse which you distinguish not As for the deniall of grace that was found to have course in the first sin that was committed both in Angels and men For I am of Austins minde concerning the Angels that stood that they were Amplius adjuti then the other that fell De Civit. Dei lib. 12. cap. 9. As also concerning Adams fall that in that case Though God gave him posse si voluit yet hee gave him not velle quod potuit and these hee makes severall adjutoria The like may bee said of every
rewarding him according to his deserts in conformity to that of the Apostle Therefore hath God exalted him But neither this advancement of his is the end of his humiliation nor either of these the end of his assumption into an hypostaticall union with the Sonne of God Nor his hypostaticall union with the second person in Trinity the end of any of these and therfore they are to be accompted rather co-ordinate then subordinate in the intention of God 2. Now I come to examine how this doubt is cleered Here we have first a rule then the accomodation of this rule Touching the rule I acknowledge it and I adde something to the cleering of it Granting that there is no order in Gods decrees but such as is grounded upon this that God purposeth one thing for another This one thing and another are only the end and the means between which we say in the intention of God there is onely prioritas rationis priority of reason which in my judgement is well expounded thus when ratio unius petitur à ratione alterius the reason of the one is taken from the reason of the other as ratio mediorum petitur à ratione sinis the reason of the means is taken from the reason of the end And therefore we say The end is first in intention and then the meanes As for the accomodation of the rule it seems to me to be nothing at all to the purpose for the doubt proposed was not how it might appeare that there was any thought of the glorifying of God before the presupposall of Adams fall and of Christs humiliation We willingly acknowledge the glory of God was thought on before them all both before the incarnation advancement of the man Christ mans fall and Christs humiliation I say before them all prioritate rationis by priority of reason for undoubtedly both the incarnation of the Son of God That is the hypostaticall union of Christs manhood to the second person in the Trinitie and the advancement of the man Christ was to the glory of God as the end thereof as well as ought else And this glory of God hath been specified at least in part And as for the glorifying of himself in Christ this still denotes the glory of God as the end though it addes withall the matter wherein it shines to wit the man Christ And to prevent the errour of equivocation that usually lurkes under generalls This glorifying of God in Christ consists either in severall or in common with the glorifying of himself in man also to wit in the elect considered in severall I confesse there is a double glory of God manifested in Christ The one is the glory of his pure grace in conferring the greatest good and honour that the creature is capable of as namely in the hypostaticall union of the manhood of Christ to the second person in the Trinitie Secondly the glory of Gods remunerative justice in the highest degree possible both in respect of the reward the greatest that possibly could be deserved for that hypostaticall union could not be deserved and that is the glorisication of the humane nature of Christ both in respect of his glory absolute and of his glory relative as by whom salvation is procured to others as also in respect of the desert the greatest I thinke that possibly could be to wit the humiliation of the Sonne of God to the death of the crosse in way of obedience to his Fathers will There is also a glory of God that appeares in Christ not in severall as a sole meanes thereof but in common with other meanes joyntly concurring thereunto and that is the glory of God in the way of mercie mixt with justice in saving sinners for the obedience of Christ The glory of God in all these severall wayes was in the first place intended by God before ought else prioritate rationis in prioritie of reason and afterwards the congruous meanes to these severall ends as the ends them selves did bespeake were intended by him for ratio mediorū petitur à ratione sinis the reason of the meanes is taken from the reason of the end But all this is nothing to shew that the incarnation of the second person or advancement of the man Christ should be before the consideration of mans fall or Christs humiliation Yet let us examine that which followeth delivered by way of proof of that which no man that I know makes question of Because Christ was ordained before the world was therefore before the consideration either of Creation or Fall For in scripture phrase when God is said to doe one thing before another he meaneth before the existence or being of it in his consideration as an inducement leading him unto it as well as before the existence of it by nature As when God is said to have loved Jacob rather then Esau before they had done either good or evill Rom. 9. 11. He meaneth before they had done it in his consideration as a cause or condition leading him to love or hatred as well as in actuall performance in their owne persons I pray consider why was Christ ordained and to what end before the world was Was he not ordained to be incarnate in the womb of the Virgin and to be a Lambe for a burnt offering to make satisfaction for sins And was it possible that this ordination could have course without consideration of the creation and fall And though this be confessed yet will it not here hence follow that the decree of creation and permission of mans fall was before the decree of the incarnation of the Sonne of God which alone as I conceive casteth some mens inventions upon the platforme of a new course And consequently it will not follow that in this case the consideration of creation and fall should precede as motives to God to send his Sonne For first I say the considerations hereof are not all precedent but conjunct and concomitant like as are the decrees Secondly if they did precede yet should they not precede as motives Good or evill workes are fit motives I confesse of election and reprobation if it were possible their considerations could precede the one or the other But creation and fall are no fit motives of ordaining Christ for they were found in Angels as well as in men though the consideration of them could precede this ordination 2. Election is as expresly said to be before the foundation of the world as the ordination of Christ And was not reprobation in opposition to election in the same moment of time and nature also Doth not election connotate reprobation But it will be said that this phrase before the world signifies not any measure of duration when that worke was done but a negation of any consideration had of the creation or fall This seems a very strange construction therefore it deserves to be discussed 3. Before Abraham was I am would you interpret it thus Before the
then is the meaning of the Lord saying I have smitten your children in vaine they have received no correction I answer we are to conceive Gods corrections to tend to this according to that of Peter knowing that the long-suffering of the Lord is salvation or God speakes this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the manner of earthly parents seeking their childrens amendment by correction but not obtaining it And this being an end of correction in Gods children in the wicked this end is not obtained And what difference is there between meanes naturall and meanes morall but this meanes naturall have power to effect their ends meanes morall are to admonish morall agents of their duty to doe this or that and so the ends of Gods punishment is that by them wee should learne to amend our lives as is signified in the Collects of our Church In a word naturall means tend to ends that shall be thereupon morall means tend to ends that should be and each are usually said to be in vaine when the end according to each kind is not obtained God sent his Sonne into the world not that hee should condemne the world but that the world should be saved by him Most true for hee sent his Son into the world to dye for the world and to dye for them is to save them and not to condemne them But for whom did hee send his Sonne into the world to dye Surely for the world of Elect even for those whom God the Father had given him Thou hast given him power over all flesh that hee should give eternall life to all them that thou hast given him Joh. 17. 2. And if wee consider the world in distinction from those whom God hath given him hee plainly professeth that as hee did not pray for them Joh. 17. 9. so hee did not sanctifie himselfe for them Verse 19. that is offer himselfe up upon the Crosse as Maldonate acknowledgeth to be the joynt interpretation of all the Fathers whom hee had read And your selfe have but earst confessed that God did not Joh. 3. 17. give the world unto Christ by him of grace to be bought or brought unto salvation Undoubtedly hee sent not Christ into the world at all to procure any mans condemnation neither doth Christ procure any mans condemnation although infidelity and disobedience to the word of Christ procures the condemnation of many And I wonder what moved you so to speake as to imply it was Gods intent though not chiefe intent to send Christ into the world to procure the condemnation of any At length wee are come to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the point controverted between us in the words following If they should plead their condemnation to be unjust for unbeleefe because they were not able to beleeve Ver. 18. our Saviour answers by a reasonable prevention ver 19. This is their condemnation viz. the just cause of their condemnation that when light came into the world men loved darknesse rather than light men chose rather to cleave to their sinfull estates and wayes of darknesse than to follow the light of the means of grace which might have brought them on to beleeve in Christ First let us consider the Text it selfe then your interpretation and accommodation thereof Our Saviour doth plainly derive the cause of their unbeleefe or disapprobation of the Gospel signified in these words They loved darknesse rather than light I say the cause of this our Saviour referres to their workes of darknesse expressed in these words Because their deeds were evill The full meaning whereof I take to be this The workes wherein they delight are evill that is workes of darknesse and therefore no marvell if they hate the light and preferre darknesse before it Pulchra Lavernae Da mihi fallere da justum sanctumque videri Noctem peccatis fraudibus objice nubem But give mee leave to make an honest motion As it becomes us to take notice of this cause mentioned here so it becomes us nothing lesse to take notice of other causes mentioned in other places Now another cause of unbeleefe is mentioned Joh. 5. 44. and that of the same generall nature with this but expressed in more speciall manner by our Saviour thus How can yee beleeve which receive honour one of another and seeke not the honour that cometh from God onely Yet this is not all the cause of unbeleefe which the Scripture commends unto us for the Apostle also takes notice of Sathans illusions in this worke of unbeleefe 2 Cor. 4. 3 4. If our Gospel be hid it is hid to them that are lost Whose eyes the God of this world hath blinded c. And because it is in the power of God to correct this delight wee take in evill workes and to deliver us from the illusions of Sathan if it please him to shew such mercy towards us and when he doth not he is said to harden us The hand of God in this our Saviour takes notice of as the cause of unbeleefe in man Joh. 12. 39 40. Therefore they could not beleeve because Esaias saith againe Hee hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart that they should not see with their eyes and understand with their heart and be converted and I should heale them Like as Moses of old told the Jewes saying Deut. 29. 2 3. Yee have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh and unto all his servants and unto all his land The great temptations which thine eyes have seen the signes and those great miracles Ver. 4. Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive and eyes to see and eares to heare unto this day And this hee doth even then when his purpose was to reprove them for their naturall incorrigiblenesse for men sinne never the lesse obstinately because God denyes them grace but rather so much the more obstinately because as Austin well saith Libertas sine gratia non est libertas sed contumacia and consequently they are never a whit the lesse faulty though it be not in their power to correct that corruption of their hearts whence this faultinesse proceeds And hereupon the Apostle gives way to the same objection in effect which you propose for having concluded that God hath mercy on whom hee will and whom hee will hee hardeneth hee gives place to such an objection Thou wilt say then Why doth hee yet complaine for who hath resisted his will and answers it not as our Saviour doth for our Saviour proposed no such objection to be answered as you feigne the Apostle doth plainly and in expresse termes Our Saviour discovers the immediate cause of unbeleefe to wit because their hearts were set on evill as it was sometimes with the Colossians Col. 1. 21. yet because it was not in their power to change their hearts but God alone who will change them through mercy in whom hee will and will not change them in others
this people an heart to feare mee and to keep my commandements alwayes that it may goe well with them and with their children for ever Oh that they were wise that they understood this that they would consider their latter end Oh that my people had hearkened unto mee and that Israel had walked in my wayes I should soon have subdued their enemies and turned my hand against their adversaries Do not all these speeches expresse an earnest and serious affection in God as concerning the conversion and salvation of this people whereof sundry died in their sinnes It is true God might have given them such hearts as to have feared and obeyed him which though hee did not yet his will that they had such hearts was serious still To cleare it by a comparison The father of the family hath both his son and servant dangerously sick of the stone to heale them both the father useth sundry medicines even all that art prescribeth except cutting when hee seeth no other remedy he perswades them both to suffer cutting to save their lives they both refuse it yet his sonne hee taketh and bindeth him hand and foot and causeth him to endure it and so saveth his life His servant also hee urgeth with many vehement inducements to submit himselfe to the same remedy but if a servant obstinately refuse hee will not alwayes strive with him nor enforce him to such breaking and renting of his body But yet did not his Master seriously desire his healing and life though hee did not proceed to the cutting asunder of his flesh which hee saw his servant would not abide to heare of So in this case both the elect and men of this world are dangerously sicke of a stony heart to heale both sorts the Lord useth sundry meanes promises judgements threatnings and mercies when all faile hee perswades them to breake their hearts and the stone thereof with cutting and wounding of their consciences when they refuse hee draweth them both the one with his almighty power the other with the cords of man viz. such as are resistible to this cutting and wounding that their soules might live and the elect are brought to yeeld and the men of this world break all cords asunder and cast away such bonds from them Shall we now say God did not seriously desire the healing of such mens hearts because hee procured not to bind them with strong cords to breake them with such woundings as they will not abide to heare of Thus having laid downe the grounds of my judgement touching the first Point That there is a will and purpose in God for to reward the world as well with life upon condition of obedience as with death upon condition of disobedience I come now to the grounds of the second Point You proceed in clearing a difficulty devised and shaped without all ground as if any sober man would find it strange that a conditionate will of God should not be accomplished as often as the condition failes And to this purpose you make use of the nature of a disjunct axiome All-along I savour others that have grased here yet have not rested themselves contented with this but proceeded further to more erroneous opinions A second objection you propose in the second place the solution whereof you seeme to travell with much more than of the former and yet the objection is altogether as causelesse and without all just ground as the former I have now been something more than ordinarily conversant in these Controversies for the space of seventeen yeares I never yet met with any of our Divines or any other that made any question whether Gods will being granted to passe on any object were serious yea or no I should thinke there is no intelligent man living that makes any doubt of this but puts it rather out of all question that whatsoever God wills hee wills it seriously I confesse the Arminians doe usually obtrude some such things on our Divines yet not altogether such for they doe not obtrude upon us as if wee said God doth not will seriously that which hee willeth but rather that hee doth not seriously exhort and admonish all those whom hee doth admonish to beleeve and repent as if hee made shew onely of desiring their obedience and salvation when indeed hee doth not Yet you seeme to sweat not a little in debellating this man of straw Upon these termes I might easily dispatch my selfe of all further trouble in examining your elaborate Answer to so causelesse an Objection but I will not for it may be you insperse something by the way of opposition to that which you doe professe which is this That God doth not at all will the obedience and repentance of any but those who are his Elect. And I would not pretermit any evidence you bring to countenance your cause in opposition to our Tenent unanswered That Gods Oath or Covenant or the workes of any Person in the Trinity tends to the end by you mentioned namely to give life to the world is utterly untrue Likewise it is utterly untrue that you have hitherunto proved any such thing For that which you here deliver as Gods end in giving life is proposed simply and absolutely but that which hitherunto you have endeavoured to prove is onely this that Gods will was to give the world life conditionally to wit upon their obedience and repentance and that as in the last place coming to the point you have expressed it in a disjunct axiome thus To give life to the creature upon his obedieace or to inflict death upon his disobedience Now let any sober man judge whether in this case the will of God be more to give life than to inflict death more passing upon the salvation of the creature than upon his eternall condemnation Could you prove that God doth will at all the salvation of any other save his Elect I would forthwith grant hee wills it seriously I should thinke it no lesse than blasphemy to thinke that God doth either will or sweare or covenant or doe that which hee doth not seriously as blasphemy consists in attributing that to God which doth not become him I nothing doubt but that if all and every one should beleeve and repent all and every one should be saved and none other thing hitherto have you so much as adventured to prove in this particular whereupon now we are But then it behoves you to look unto it on the other side how you cleare your selfe from blasphemy in the same kind while you maintain that God doth will the salvation of those which shall never be saved which not in my judgement only but in the judgement of Austin of old doth mainly trench upon Gods omnipotency for if hee would save them but doth not hee is hindered and resisted by somewhat and consequently his will is not omnipotent nor irresistible And more than this here-hence it will follow that either God continues still to will their
confesse this course of justifying a tenet by the usefulnesse of it is usually much made of by the Arminians but I could never brooke it in any This is a faire way to make a rule of faith unto our selves and under colour of usefulnesse to shape the doctrine of the Gospel after our owne fancies yet I am willing to examine what here you deliver also in every particular 1. As touching the first Use I finde you serve your turne with a manifest confusion of the grace of vocation with the grace of salvation Thus God of free grace saves in the one in justice damnes in the other But the comparison you make is nothing congruous For it is so carried by you as if in this dealing of God the case were alike with mans dealing as when a Judge amongst many malefactors equally guiltie of death saves some and damnes others These are nothing equall for the one die in faith and repentance the other die void of faith and in the state of impenitency Therefore to help this incongruitie you will be driven to fly to effectuall vocation And indeed before God doth effectually call some by such a grace as he denies others they whom hee cals were no better then others But let us make way for the truth to appeare in her proper colours by distinguishing those things which ought to be distinguished lest wee be found to be in love with our owne errours As touching Vocation 1. we acknowledge with you and you with us the freenesse of Gods efficacious grace bestowed on some and denyed to others and herein magnified that whereas God might have bestowed it on others and not on them he hath bestowed it on them and not on others yea on them who are but few in comparison permitting a farre greater multitude of others and which is especially to be considered though you are not willing to take notice of it Like as God hath mercy on some in giving them this efficacious grace we speak of meerely according to the good pleasure of his owne will so he hardens others denying them the same grace and that meerely according to the good pleasure of his owne will And thus the freenesse of his grace is magnified towards the elect by his severitie and freenesse of his will in denying it unto others whereas you so carry it as if the freenesse of his grace to the one were magnified in respect of his justice toward the world of mankinde in dealing with them according to their workes which is a plausible speech and of common course usually admitted but utterly void of truth The truth being this That like as God in inflicting damnation on men doth not proceed according to the meer pleasure of his own will but according to the works of men so in denying grace efficacious he doth not proceed according to the workes of men but meerely according to the good pleasure of his owne will For the Apostle plainely professeth in this case that looke how he hath mercie on whom hee will so likewise he hardens whom hee will And to cleare the truth in this point because as many as vary from the truth of God in this point are not very prone to heare on this eare let us consider that justice hath different acceptions In a common notion it is no otherwise taken then for justitia condecentiae as the Schoolemen call it Thus whatsoever God doth is an act of Gods justice whether it be an act of power as in makeing the world out of nothing or an act of liberalitie in doing good to the creature without cause or an act of mercy in pardoning sin all these are acts of justice in this sense The meaning whereof is no more but this In all these actions God doth no other thing then what himselfe hath lawfull power to doe In this sense it is just with God as well to have mercy on whom he will as to harden whom hee will And so your comparison here made should have no life at all to that purpose whereunto you accommodate it For in this sense the justice of God shall equally appeare on both sides Whereas you make the freenesse of Gods grace only on the one side to be magnified the more by the consideration of his justice which hath course on the other So that to hold up your owne comparison as decently proposed you must be driven to forgoe this common notion of justice and sticke to a more strict and peculiar notion thereof and that is when God rewards or punisheth men according to their workes Now I say that God doth not deny efficacious grace to any man according to his workes which I demonstrate thus The execution of justice in this kinde doth alwayes proceed according to some law which law is made to man by some superior power but unto God not by any superior power for hee acknowledgeth no superior power but by his owne will As for example Wherefore doth God crowne all them with glory who die in faith and in repentance To wit because he hath ordained and made a law that whosoever continueth to the end in the state of faith and repentance shall be saved Againe why doth God damne them to everlasting fire who die in sinne void of faith void of repentance To wit because God hath ordained and made a law that whosoever beleeveth not provided that he continueth in unbeliefe unto the end shall be damned For undoubtedly God could have turned men into nothing had it so pleased him and had hee not decreed the contrary like as hee brought men out of nothing Now shew me that God hath ordained or made a law that men found in such or such a condition shall be denyed efficacious grace if you cannot shew any such ordinance or law of God then doe not say that God in denying grace proceeds according to mens workes in justice And indeed if any such law could be assigned it would follow that in the communicating of grace also God should proceed not according to the good pleasure of his will but in justice according to mens workes Consider a second argument What is sinne originall but the spirituall death of the soule By Regeneration man formerly dead in sinne is revived Now is it congruous to say that because man is dead in sinne therefore it is just with God not to revive him Because a man is blind therefore it is just with God not to open his eyes Or because he is deafe therefore it is just with God not to open his eares Suppose sin were but the sicknesse of the soule is it congruous to say that because a man is sicke therefore it is just with God not to cure him Whereas it is manifest that unlesse a man were first sicke it were impossible to cure him unlesse first blinde or deafe it were impossible to restore sight or hearing unto him unlesse first dead it were utterly impossible to revive him Come wee now to salvation and
in carnall Christians Whereas if things were distinguished aright it would more easily appeare what is within the region of nature and what beyond it as meerely imputable to the speciall grace of God and operation of his spirit 3 As for dogs and swine wee are forbidden to give our holy things or to cast our pearles before them at all And therefore are wee not to trouble our selves in considering to what end this doctrine is to be preached unto them And yet as for the testifications proposed as proper unto them it is nothing so for not to them only but to carnall Christians also doe such belong yea to the very Children of God also to wit That God is just in all that cometh on them and his wayes equall As when after Davids foule sinnes in the matter of Uriah the sword pursued his house and Absolon defiled his fathers concubines and hee was driven to flie from Jerusalem and Shimei meeting him on the way cursed him c. And I pray you what unregenerate man throughout the world doth not love the cursed wayes of sin in some kind or other though not in all kinds And no marvell for vice is like a pike in a pond it devoures both vertue and lesser vices One vice is opposite to another and not onely unto vertue And therefore no mervaile if no man be found vicious in all kinds 4 As for the Lutheran and Arminian you professe that this Tenet of yours removes such stumbling blocks out of their way as have hitherto turned them out of the way of truth and peace But what these stumbling blocks are which you have removed I know not It seemes this hath been a chiefe inducement unto you to decline from that which you confesse to be the most received opinion of our Church and to shape unto your selfe a new forme of opinion different from that which is received if not to remove some stumbling blocks out of your owne way Now if it be so the fairest course had been to have expressed what these offences are Secondly how our most received Tenet doth either cast them in tho way of others or at least doth not remove them and thirdly to shew how by this opinion of yours they are removed But none of these have been performed by you Againe Mr. Moulin being very orthodox in the point of Election as you are varieth from us as you doe in the point of Reprobation maintaining Reprobation to be instituted upon the foresight of mans finall impenitency in his Anatome Arminianismi Corvinus an Arminan hath taken him to taske in a worke of his and is never a whit the more forward to concurre with us in the point of Election because Moulin concurres with them in the point of Reprobation Nay what doe Papists say about Durham by occasion of our complying with them but this They need not comply with us for wee come fast enough forwards to comply with them And more then this I have already shewed that this tempering or corrupting rather of the doctrine of Reprobation maketh a faire way for the utter overthrowing of that which you call the sound and comfortable doctrine of Election Forasmuch as looke by what reason you maintaine the foresight of small impenitencie and infidelitie to goe before Reprobation as it signifies the punishing with everlasting death by the same reason it will appeare that the foresight of finall perseverance in faith repentance and good workes must necessarily goe before Election as it signifies Gods decree of rewarding with everlasting life In which notion alone election or the decree of salvation is contrarily opposite to reprobation or the decree of condemnation For in maintaining that Reprobation as a purpose of God to condemne for sin doth presuppose the foresight of sinne you doe thereby imply that Election as a purpose of God to reward for righteousnesse of faith and repentance doth presuppose the foresight of faith and repentance But if your meaning be no other than this that God hath ordained no man unto damnation but for sinne what offence or scandall doe you remove hereby which wee doe not remove also who concurre with you herein And which is more wee are ready not onely to affirme but to make good also that in no moment of nature doth the purpose of Condemnation goe before the foresight of sinne even of that sinne for which men shall be damned Whereas you in maintaining that the foresight of sinne is precedent to the purpose of condemnation are not able to make it good but must necessarily fall foule upon a manifest contradiction to your owne rules For if the foresight of sinne be precedent to the decree of condemnation then God did first decree to permit sinne before hee did decree to damne for it And herehence it followeth that permission of sinne in Gods intention was before condemnation and if it were first in intention then by your owne rules it must be last in execution that is men shall be condemned for sinne before ever they be permitted to sinne Nay I appeale to your owne conscience whether wee doe not open a fairer way for composition in the point of election then you doe in the point of Reprobation Considering that like as in Reprobation Gods decree to condemne is in no moment of nature precedent to Gods foresight of sinne so in Election I am bold to affirme that Gods purpose to save is in no moment of nature before his foresight of faith repentance and good workes and finall perseverance in them all Will not you thinke that you have cause to feare hereupon that I am more dissolute in the point of Election than rigid in the point of Reprobation Yet if you will confesse that herein is a faire way opened for composition in the point of Election I dare undertake to perswade you that this shall be maintained without any prejudice either to the freenesse of Gods grace or to the absolutnesse of his power The truth is our Divines have a long time erred in making different decrees of those which are but one I mean formall decree to wit of the meanes though materially different which is nothing strange For why should it seeme strange that many meanes should be required to the same end Wee commonly say that Gods decree to give salvation is the decree of the end and his decree to give faith and repentance is the decree of the meanes yet they dare not say commonly that Gods decree to inflict damnation is the decree of the end and Gods decree to deny grace is the decree of the meanes And so they are driven to overthrow all Analogie between Election and Reprobation I say that Gods decree of giving faith and salvation unto sinners are but one formall decree of God concerning the meanes the end whereof is the manifestation of Gods glory in the way of mercie mixt with justice And indeed nothing can be the end of Gods actions but his owne glory for hee made all things
for himselfe and as all things are from him so all things must be for him for the supreame efficient must be the supreame end Now if God at once and in one moment of nature decreeth to give salvation by way of reward of faith judge you or let any indifferent Reader judge whether this decree of salvation be not necessarily conjunct with the foresight of saith 5 As for the occasions of slandering and reviling the orthodox truth of God which as you conceive this doctrine of yours cutteth of to the cavilling and froward spirit you have not so much as expressed what they are much lesse justified them to be such occasions as you speak of or shewed how they are removed by your doctrine and not by ours In like sort what is that equitie of the wayes of God the credit of the clearing whereof you attribute to your owne doctrine and derogate from ours you take no paines to explicate If your meaning be that you maintaine that God condemnes no man but for sinne voluntarily and freely committed by him and withall doe obtrude upon us the contrary you doe us the greater wrong provided you speak of men of ripe yeares As for the damnation of infants I doubt you feare so much to offend men that you come too neere the Pelagian and Arminian tenet hereabouts And if you thinke there is any active power in a naturall man to believe and repent wee will not feare offence to resist you or any man in this the scripture having so plainely expressed the contradictorie to this 1 Cor. 2. 14. and Rom. 8. 8. Or if your opinion be that God doth not harden whom he will as well as hee shewes mercie on whom hee will where the good pleasure of God is as evidently signified to be the cause of the one as of the other wee shall not forbeare by Gods grace through feare of offence to resist you in this also And if Pharaoh shall hereupon object and say Why doth God complaine of my not letting Israel goe when he himselfe hardens my heart that I may not let Israel goe wee thinke it fit to take the Apostles course to stop such a ones mouth and say O man who art thou that disputest with God shall the thing formed say to him that formed it why hast thou made me thus Hath not the potter power c. And let men take heed they doe not take upon them to be wiser then the Holy Ghost and thinke to satisfie men by devises of their owne when the word of God doth not satisfie them Yet in all this the Apostle doth not impeach the libertie of their wils nor Austin neither but rather justifieth it throughout yet is hee bold to pronounce that libertas sine gratia non est libertas sed contumacia As much as to say a man without grace hath will too much to that which is evill and averse from that which is good as being wilfully bent to the one and opposite to the other And the providence of God in the efficacie of working all things to his owne ends compared with the libertie of the creature hath ever been accounted of a secret nature whereas now a dayes nothing will satisfie the Patrons of free will unlesse this secret and misterious providence of God as it was wont to be accounted come to be utterly overthrowen and libertie of the creature if not chance be brought to domineere in the place thereof When you speak of the orthodox truth of God I presume you doe not distinguish of the truth of God as if some were orthodox and some not Yet I confesse Epithites have another use besides the use of distinction yet in this case also the Epithite is not congruous for orthodox is as much in effect as true 6 As touching the last I presume you will not deny but that the riches of Gods grace to Christ and in him to all the Elect are by our Tenet acknowledged to be as wonderfull as by yours As for the absolute power of his soveraigntie in dealing farre otherwise with the world I presume your opinion is that wee doe exceed rather then come short of you in the acknowledging thereof For wee maintaine God to be as absolute and free in the denying of grace to some as in giving it to others And by denying of grace wee understand the hardning of men at least as touching the chiefe part wherein it consists Yet this you will have to proceed not so much according to Gods absolutnesse as according to his justice in punishing men with obduration yet I grant there is an obduration which is properly enough a punishment of sinne and when men are thereby prostituted unto danger and exposed unto destruction Yet I dare appeale to the judgment of any intelligent Arminian whether in case you doe maintaine as you speak the absolute power of Gods soveraigntie in dealing farre otherwise with the world then with the elect any scandall is removed out of their way by your tenet which is cast in their way by ours As for the unsearchable depth of his wisdome in the order and end of all his wayes as also of his patience towards all men I presume you will not say it is more maintained by your tenet then by ours But by the way I hope you will not except against that of Austin Quantam libet praebuerit patientiam nisi Deus dederit quis aget poenitentiam cont Jul. liber 5. Cap. 4. And againe in the same place Istorum neminem to wit non praedestinatorum adduoit Deus ad salubrem spiritualemque poenitentiam quâ homo reconoiliatur Deo in Christo sive ampliorem illis patientiam sive non imparem praebeat And againe adducit ad poenitentiam sed praedestinatum adducit and none other in his opinion As for the justice of God to obstinate sinners I hope you will not say the common tenet of our Divines doth any way infringe it wee generally maintaine him to be righteous in all his workes and holy in all his wayes For hee punisheth none but for sin none of ripe yeares but for sinne voluntarily and freely committed by them and that in such sort as they might avoide it speaking of any outward transgresion Onely it is not in their power to change their hearts and to love God with all their hearts and feare him and depend upon him Whence it cometh to passe that albeit there is no particular materiall transgresion which they could not avoide yet it is not in the power of a naturall man to avoid it in a gracious manner and all for want of that love of God before spoken of which cannot be wrought in a man but by the spirit of regeneration If any man should further object as I wish you had objected to the uttermost against our Tenet supposing a naturall man to performe what good lieth in his power to performe but not in a gracious manner and likewise to omit what lyeth in his power
Esau as if it consisted onely in making Esau Jacobs servant and Jacob Esaus Lord according to your opinion it extends further then this even to the granting of such grace to Jacob as should bee accompanied with salvation and denying of the same to Esau whereupon infallibly followed condemnation It is true God is just in dealing with Esau and God is as just every whit in dealing with Jacob for hee deales with each according to the Law himself made But God shewed mercy also unto Jacob in providing a Saviour to die for him and in circumcising his heart and making him to perform the condition of life hee shewed no such mercy unto Esau You see well how incongruous it were to plead the sin of Esau why hee should bee so dealt withall seeing Jacob at that time deserved no better But why doe you not observe that this Discourse of the Apostle hath every way as pregnant a reference to the obduration of Pharaoh or of any one that is hardned as to Gods dealing with Esau Again suppose some are not so bad as Pharaoh was when God hardens Pharaoh and doth not harden others but rather shews them mercy will you say the reason hereof is because these deserved better at the hands of God then Pharaoh Doe you not perceive how this Doctrine carryeth you ere you are aware to trench upon the freenesse of Gods grace in mans effectuall vocation Suppose Nicodemus who sought to our Saviour by night were converted and Saul had not been at all converted but still hardned would you have said that Paul was hardned because of his sin in persecuting the Church of God but Nicodemus deserved better at the hands of God then Saul Yet wee are sure that Saul in spight of all his persecution was converted when in all probability many a morall Jew and nothing factious in opposing the Gospel of Christ yea and many a Gentile too were not converted but perished in their sins and in the blindnesse of their minde If it bee urged thereupon that God doth harden the creature and also hateth him with a positive hatred without all respect of sin in the creature out of his absolute will I answer in these deep counsels and unsearchable wayes of God it is safe for us to wade no farther then wee may see the light of the Scriptures clearing our paths and the grounds thereof paving our wayes and as it were chalking it out before us The Scripture telleth us That God hardens whom hee will And again sin is the cause in which and for which God doth harden any both which will stand together That as God sheweth mercy on whom hee pleaseth so hee hardneth whom hee pleaseth out of his absolute will Yet hardneth none but with respect of sin going before For First when wee speak of the reprobate with comparison of the elect they are both alike sinners And therefore if the question bee why God hardneth the reprobate and doth not harden but shew mercy on the Elect Here no cause can bee rendred of this different dealing but onely the will and good pleasure of God sin is alike common to both and cannot bee alledged as the cause of this diversity Idem qua idem semper facit idem But when wee speak of the Reprobates alone considered in themselves If the question bee why God is pleased to harden them The answer is alway truely and safely given It pleased God to harden them for their sins And which is yet more when God is said to harden a wicked man for his sin it is not sin that moved God primarily to harden him but his absolute will it was to harden him for his sin for what sin could God see in the creature to provoke him to harden it but what hee might have prevented by his providence or healed by the blood of Christ if it had so seemed good to his good pleasure When therefore God doth harden a creature for his sin it is because it is his good pleasure even his absolute will so to harden him To will a thing absolutely and yet to will it on this or that condition may well stand together in many a voluntary agent when the condition is such as that the will might easily help if it so pleased As if a man should cast off a servant for some disease hee hath which hee might easily heale if it pleased him or break his vessell for some such uncleannesse which hee could easily rinse out Both these may well bee said of him at once that hee cast off his servant for his disease and brake his vessell for its uncleanenesse and yet might hee cast out his servant and break his vessell and both out of his good pleasure and out of his absolute and his free will It is true the Word of God is a Lantborn unto our feete and a Light to our paths and it is fit wee should rest contented herewith for discovering unto us the whole counsell of God Now this Word of God plainly teacheth us that God bardneth whom hee will Now I presume you doe not doubt but that God out of his absolute will shews mercy on whom hee will Nay I can hardly beleeve but that your opinion is that like as God out of his absolute will granted saving grace to Jacob so out of his absolute will he denyed saving grace to Esau And still doth to those whom you account the world of mankinde And I have already shewed that the deniall of this grace can bee no punishment For as much as punishment consisteth either in inflicting evill or in denying some good which formerly was granted them But in denying saving grace to the world of mankinde hee doth not deny them any thing which they formerly injoyed I have already shewed what that hardning is which is for sin and wherein it doth consist not in denying saving grace which they never injoyed but in denying that naturall restraint from some foule sin which formerly they injoyed as I exemplifyed it in that Rom. 1. 27. That in Rom. 11. 7 8 9 10 11. is nothing for you where there is no mention of sin as the cause of their obduration As for that in Psalm 69. 21. Their blinding is referred to their giving unto Christ Gall in his meate and in his thirst vinegar to drink I pray consider Were they not even then blinded when they persecuted Christ unto death And yet notwithstanding some of these were converted Act. 2. But upon this their opposition unto Christ God did proceed to blinde them more and more but how Not by denying saving illumination for this they never injoyed it was denyed them from the first to the last But by withdrawing from them the meanes of illumination more and more as namely the preaching of Gospel and the working of miracles and the giving them over unto the power of Satan This also is to give them over to their own hearts lust Psal 81. 11 12. by ceasing to
conscience to judge not to mention how this Discourse of yours is found to harden many in the way of error and to offend others in the way of truth Indeed there were no cause of any such objection as that Rom. 9. 29. if so bee God hardens no man but for sin and withall it is just with God to harden men in their sine and lesse cause of such an answer Rom. 9. 20 21 22. No man I think makes any doubt but that the objection Why doth hee complain for who hath resisted his will ariseth from the 18 ver where it is said that God as hee hath mercy on whom hee will so hee hardneth whom hee will even as hee hardned Pharaoh but yet you doe not shape the objection right when you shape it thus What fault is there in mee to bee hardned which is in effect as if you would shape it thus Wherein then have I deserved to bee hardned For the negative to this namely that God doth not harden upon desert is that which the Apostle avoucheth Like as neither doth hee shew mercy upon desert But like as upon the meere pleasure of his will hee shews mercy on some So according to the good pleasure of his will hee hardneth others But well might hee say why then doth hee complain of the hardnesse of my heart and my impenitency or rather the Apostle proposeth it in reference to the fruits of mans hardnesse of heart and impenitency such as God complains of Esa 1. I have nourished and brought up a people and they have rebelled against mee And Esa 56. All the day long have I stretched out mine hands to a rebellious people that walk in a way which is not good even after their own imaginations Or as if Pharaoh hearing of this ministry of Gods providence should say Why doth hee complain of the hardnesse of my heart in not letting Israel goe when hee hath hardned my bea rt that I should not let Israel goe and who hath resisted his will I have already shewed that this hardning of Pharaoh and so likewise of all reprobates as it consists in denying of saving grace in congruous opposition to Gods mercy proceeds meerely according to the good pleasure of Gods will And the Apostle plainly signifies as much when hee saith That like as God hath mercy on whom bee will so hee hardneth whom bee will Neither doth hee take into consideration any sin of theirs as the cause of hardning either in the proposition delivered by him or in answer to the objection arising there-hence Why then should wee bee moved with your bare word in saying wee need not say that the Apostle gave occasion of this objection by ascribing the hardning of Pharaoh and other reprobates to Gods absolute will and without all respect to sin as the deserving cause thereof Neither do you give any reason of that you avouch in saying that albeit God doth not harden but in respect of sin yet the creature will pleade or expostulate as indeed it is most unreasonable to ask why God doth complain of hardnesse of heart and the fruits thereof when it hath been shewed that this hardnesse of heart hath been brought upon man for his own sin and no exception taken against it But when out of Gods absolutenesse men are hardned then and not till then may it justly seem strange that God should complain of the hardnesse of mens hearts and the fruites thereof As for the place of Esa 63. 17. Wherein you suppose Gods people to expostulate with God for hardning them notwithstanding they suppose that God hardens them for their sin this is to beg the question and not to prove ought there being no evidence of any such acknowledgment as you suppose namely that God doth harden them for their sins Yet if there were any such acknowledgment it would not forthwith make for your purpose unlesse they should acknowledge as much of that obduration the Apostle speaks of where hee sets it in opposition to Gods shewing mercy To serve your turn you take liberty to interpret the coherence of these parts to erre from thy waies and to bee hardned against thy feare as if the former were the cause of the other upon no other ground that I know but that thus it shall stand in more congruity with your opinion Whereas indeed there is a farre greater probability that hardning against the feare of God should bee the cause of the errour of our wayes then that errour of our wayes should bee the cause of our hardning against the feare of God especially taking hardning not confusedly hand over head but distinctly in opposition to Gods shewing mercy in mans conversion I take them only as severall expressions of the same things consisting of an inward corrupt disposition as the roote and that I conceive to bee the want of the feare of God and the fruit hereof which is aberration from the good wayes of the Lord. And they expostulate with God for not correcting all this by his grace as by his Covenant of grace which hee hath made with them hee hath ingaged himself hereunto even to keep them from going astray like a good Shepherd and to put his feare into their hearts that they shall never depart away from him Which kinde of expostulation is nothing answerable to that which the Apostle proposeth to answer Rom. 9. 16. And I may well wonder what you meant to yoke them together Non bene inaequales veniunt ad aratra juvencae The children of God doe not expostulate with God for his complaining of their disobedience unthankfulnesse and rebellions against him though they heartily wish they had never provoked him and expostulate with him for not preserving them by his grace from such courses of provocation of him even of the eyes of his glory The wicked have no such desire to bee preserved from sin and sinfull courses which are unto them as sweet bits which they roule under their tongues Although when they heare of the Doctrine of obduration and his power to harden them and in hardning they may take advantage thereby to blaspheme God and to plead Apologie for themselves Belike then you acknowledge that God hath power to harden without respect to sin for to this purpose tends your comparative illustration But then you must bee driven to deny that obduration is a punishment seeing it is impossible that just punishments can have course but with respect to sin as a meritorious cause thereof That God beateth down the objectour and pleadeth the justice of Gods proceedings against Reprobates from the soveraign authority of God over his creatures is most true ver 20 21. But that hee pleads the due desert of the persons ver 22. thereby to justifie God in hardning whom hee will as positively avouched but so farre from truth as that it involves plain contradiction no lesse then if the Apostle after hee had said that God hath mercy on whom hee will should afterward take
is to neglect the meanes And consequently to use the meanes aright was to doe accordingly as they were informed And indeed if they had done otherwise then they did they had not done so bad as they did I finde such giddinesse of discourse usually amongst the Arminians while they satisfie themselves with phrases never examining particularly the matter and substance of their own expressions Because of the abuse of these talents and meanes of grace God therefore doth deny to the men of this world such powerfull and gracious helpes as hee vouchsafeth freely to the Elect to draw them on effectually to repentance and salvation The Gentiles abusing the light of nature God gave them up to vile affections yea even to a reprobate minde The Pharisees because they employed the talent of their wealth unfaithfully God would not trust them with the true riches The Jews because they rejected Christ and his Word and his Messengers with scornfull and bitter malignity and brought forth grapes of gall and wormwood therefore God took his Word from them and hid from them the things that did belong unto their peace hee took the kingdome of God from them and gave them as a prey to sinne and misery and derision Psal 81. 11 12. What if none of the world as opposed to the Elect ever came to Christ or made such use of the means and helpes offered in him unto them as to obtaine salvation and regenerating grace by him yet might they have made better use of the means then they did which because they did not it was just with God to deny them greater means who thus abused the lesser In all this wee have as pure Arminianisme tendred unto us as could drop from the pen of Arminius himselfe or Corvinus Yet God forbid wee should co nomine for that cause dislike it It truth wee must embrace it though it come out of the mouth of the Devill If falshood wee shall by Gods grace disclaim it though it proceed out of the mouth of Angels of light and not disclaim it onely but disprove it also You may as well say that God doth not draw the men of this world effectually to Repentance because they doe abuse the talents and means of grace but this I disprove thus First if this bee the cause why God doth not draw them to repentance then this is the cause why hee sheweth not to them that mercy which hee doth to the Elect but this is not the cause thereof which I prove thus The meer pleasure of God is the cause therefore that is not The antecedent thus God shews mercy on whom hee will and hardens that is denies mercy to whom hee will If to harden were not to deny mercy it could not stand in opposition to shewing mercy The consequence I demonstrate thus If to deny mercy to whom hee will doth not inferre that mercy is not denyed according unto works then to shew mercy to whom hee will doth not inferre that mercy is not shewed according unto works Secondly if mens evil works were the cause why God denies them mercy then it could not bee said that God denies mercy because it is the pleasure of his will to deny it For if a reason bee demanded why a malefactor is hanged it were very absurd to answer that the reason is because it was the pleasure of the Magistrate to have him hanged Thirdly if evill works bee the deserving cause why Gods mercy is denyed unto men then either by necessity of nature or by constitution of God Not by necessity of nature in opposition to the constitution of God for then by necessity of nature God must bee compelled to deny mercy unto such what then shall become of Gods Elect unlesse you will say that their workes before mercy shewed them were not so bad as others which were equally to contradict both experience and the Word of God For in this case men should have mercy shewed on them according to their works to wit as they were found lesse evill then the works of others Nor by constitution of God For first shew mee any such constitution that men in such a condition of evill works shall bee denyed mercy Secondly by the same constitution mercy should bee denyed to the Elect also When you speak of the Gentiles in this case abusing the light of Nature and given over to vile affections you take your aime miserably amisse For the Gentiles are not the men of the world in opposition to the Elect. But God forbid that the Gentiles and the men of the world should bee terms convertible in this kinde for then what should become of us Certainly the number of Gods Elect is greater amongst the Gentiles then among the Jews and even of those that were given over to vile affections some were Elect as appears 1 Cor. 6. 9 10 11. And to say that the cause why God denies them mercy was because they abused the light of nature I have freshly disproved this and that evidently as I presume the intelligent Reader will observe though the contrary I confesse bee very plausible at the first sight and before wee come to the discussing of it Thirdly you take your aime amisse also though not in so great measure as in the former in the phrases For even of the Pharisees some were Elect witnesse holy Paul Who abused his zeale of the Law more foully then hee even to the persecuring of Gods Church yet was not the true treasure denyed to him and that in the highest measure And as for Reprobates if you think their unfaithfulnesse in the use of their wealth was the cause why mercy was denyed them for the disproofe hereof I refer mee to my former arguments Fourthly the very Elect of God not onely rejected Christ for a time but also crucifyed him That which you urge of Gods taking his word and Kingdom in plain terms the means of grace from such a Nation as contemns them is nothing to the purpose For wee treat of Gods shewing and denying mercy not in the means but as touching the grace it self of Repentance But this benefit you have confounded by comprehending both under the name of meanes and helpes for your advantage to passe from the one to the other as you see good Here indeed it is as true that because men doe make precious account of the means of grace therefore God continueth these means unto them like as because of mens perseverance in Faith and Repentance and good works God rewards them with everlasting life like as because men die in their sins therefore God inflicts on them everlasting death Onely with this difference Sin on the one side is the meritorious cause both of withdrawing the means of grace and of damnation but conscionable walking before God in the use of the means is only the disposing cause both to the continuance of the means and to eternall salvation For God by grace makes us meet partakers of
offered or given that is whereupon they are offered or given to wit the helps of grace Here new mysteries offer themselves againe I must bee driven Balaam-like to cast about for divinations and whether in the issue I shall finde that I seek for I cannot assure my self You came but now from speaking of common graces and by the coherence these helps of grace which here you speak of should bee those common graces considered as helps of grace speciall Now had you given instance and shewed what these common graces are they might of themselves have discovered the reference wherein they stand unto grace speciall which I ghesse to bee faith and repentance This you might easily have done and saved us a great deale of irresolution and paines also partly in seeking after that which wee cannot easily finde and partly in labouring to disprove wee know not what This confused course proceede in some from an ill minde fearing lest their opposites should have too much liberty by their plaine dealing to impugne them but in good men it proceeds from the weaknesse of their cause and from the uncertainty and ambiguity of their thoughts for the justifying of that which they doe maintain But let us proceed These helps of grace by which I hope you mean helps unto faith and repentance you plainly signifie are offered upon a condition and by the quality of this condition wee may judge whether they to whom they are offered are included within the covenant of grace or no. Now let us indevour to sound your meaning These helps of grace must needs bee either outward means or inward qualities and habits By helps I should understand outward means after mine own phrase of speech and by yours also I have good cause for as much as in the words immediately going before you joyn helps and means together and confound common graces with them both As for means of grace they are not given upon condition for what condition can bee imagined whereupon the Gospel should bee given to a Nation shall it bee the using of their naturalls right how will you bee able to make it good that heathen men before they injoyed the Gospel did use their naturalls right Did the Corinthians who were carryed away with dumb Idols even as they were led 1 Cor. 12. 2. And for not honouring God as God did not God give them up into a reprobate minde to doe things inconvenient as well as others thereby to receive the recompence of their errours Judge of this by that which the Apostle mindes them of 1 Cor. 6. For after hee had told them that neither Fornicators nor Idolaters nor Adulterers nor Wantons nor Buggerers nor Theeves nor Covetous nor Drunkards nor Raylers nor Extortioners shall inherit the Kingdome of God ver 9. 10. forthwith hee addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these things were some of you as much as to say some of you were fornicators some adulterers some Idolaters some wantons some buggerers some theeves some covetous some drunkards some raylers some extortioners or some of them in diverse kindes if not in all these kindes lyable to condemnation and utter exclusion out of the Kingdom of God But yet for all this yee are washed but yee are sanctifyed but yee are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the spirit of our God ver 11. And is it not manifest that when the Gospel is first preached to any Nation it is preached as well to the uncivill as to those that are civill as well to the debauched as to the morall Again In this case the Gospel should bee bestowed by way of reward of obedience but obedience is no obedience unlesse it bee performed upon knowledge in obedience unto some Law given Now how could the Gentiles know of any such Law that whosoever used their naturalls should bee rewarded with the benefit of the Gospel seeing this is no where pretended to bee revealed but in the Gospel So that assoon as any man hears of such a Law hee already enjoyeth the Gospel The two first of these arguments may as well bee applyed against this doctrine of yours if by helps of Grace you mean some habits or qualities besides that which may bee further alledged upon your specification what these habits and qualities are And here is a faire way opened for a third Covenant for as for the two covenants commonly acknowledged they are onely for the obtaining of Salvation different wayes besides which here is brought in another Covenant for the obtaining the means of grace and that different wayes also to wit either by works or by Grace But when I look unto your former words and consider them well as when you say it is not the helps of grace offered or given that include men within any part of the Covenant of grace but the condition whereupon it is offered or given these words It is offered or given perhaps are not referred to the helps of grace but rather to the grace it self yet I interpret them of the helps of grace with no other minde then to salve this rule of yours from manifest contradiction For by your rule you professe that the inclusion of some within the covenant of grace and the exclusion of others depends not upon any indifference in the things offered or given but onely on the condition whereupon they are offered or given manifestly implying thereby that the same things are given to them that are without the covenant and to them that are within but the difference is onely in the condition whereupon they are given But if your rule run thus it is not the helps offered or given that include a man within the Covenant of grace but the condition whereupon the grace it self is given Hereby you manifest that they within the Covenant of grace and they without are distinguished not onely by the condition whereupon that which they have is given but also by the things themselves which are given them for as much as onely the helps of grace are given to the one to wit to them that are without the covenant but not only helps of grace but grace it self is given to the other which serves directly contrary to your rule here given not to speak of the miserable confusion that like a Leprosie seizeth upon your manner of expression and which you hold up in the beginning of your next section But before I come to the scanning thereof let mee tell you of your dis-junctive phrase as when you said offered or given this is very ill-accommodated to the helps of grace if you meane helpes outward such as the Gospel for the Gospel where it is preached there it is not onely offered but hoc ipso given The phrase offered is as ill accommodated to grace it self in respect of the condition whereupon depends admission into the convenant of grace For to offer to a man admission into the covenant of grace upon condition is to offer it upon a condition to bee performed by
God over his creatures by the power of the Potter over the Clay in making therehence one vessell to honour and another to dishonour It is true since the fall of Adam man in his generation hath no being without sin for wee are even conceived in sin yet it is not that sin that makes a man a vessell of wrath for if it did then all should bee made by God vessels of wrath But albeit the Apostle signifies that wee are all born children of wrath which is verifyed in respect of the desert even of sin originall yet neither Apostle nor Prophet doth any where give us to understand that all men are made vessels of wrath This phrase includes first the intention of God like a Potter to make such use of them as to make his just wrath appeare upon them and this purpose of God was everlasting not onely as old as every mans generation but as old as the creation of all yea and from everlasting before the Creation Secondly it includes also a fitnesse in the vessell for such an use not fitnesse in the way of desert only such fitnesse being found in all the naturall sons of Adam but fitnesse in respect of Gods purpose to shew wrath Now like as in proportion hereunto the making of a man fit for mercy is the giving of him grace so the denying of grace finally makes him fit for wrath in this sense for as much as God will damn none but such as die in their sins Here I speak of wrath and mercy as they consist in giving salvation or inflicting damnation Lastly if none are ripened for destruction till the refusall of meanes of grace or the committing of grosse and unnaturall iniquity then it followeth that no Infants of Turks and Sarecens are vessels of wrath No nor men of ripe yeers amongst the heathen many of whom never having either refused the means of grace for as much as they never injoyed them and having lived civilly and morally all their dayes Philosopher-like free from grosse and unnaturall iniquity And though all this bee granted you yet if God to that end refuse to shew mercy on them in giving them Faith and Repentance and continues to harden them by denying such grace look how rigorous or unreasonable soever the objection pretended Gods course to bee in complaining of them for their disobedience when God himself hath hardned them in the same degree of rigour and unreasonablenesse it continues still without all mitigation notwithstanding all that you have said hitherto to the contrary Fourthly as for the fourth I have no desire to quarrell with you thereabout Gods judgements indeed Rom. 11. 33. that is his agendirationes as Piscator interpreteth it are unsearchable and his wayes past finding out But you take a course quite contrary to make them nothing unsearchable but easie to be found out For if obduration bee in respect of sin surely there is no unsearchable depth in this And in my opinion the chief wayes of God which the Apostle aimes it in the place alledged consists in having mercy on whom hee will and hardning whom he will and in generall thus in proportion to that which goeth before There was a time when God had a Church without distinction of Jews and Gentiles as before the Flood and after till the bringing of the children of Israel out of Aegypt Again there was a time after this for about 1600. yeers that God had a Church of the Jews in distinction from the Gentiles And since that for the space of about 1600. yeers God hath had a Church among the Gentiles in distinction from the Jews And we look for a time to come when God shall have a Church and that here on earth consisting both of the Nation of the Jews and of the Nations of the Gentiles Three of these states are signifyed by the Apostle immediately before Rom. 11. 30. For even as yee in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 past have not beleeved God yet have now obtained mercy through their unbeleef there have wee two of them one past another then present Then follows the third ver 31. Even so now have they not beleeved by the mercy shewed unto you this is part of the second that they also may obtain mercy This is the third which wee look for ver 32. For God hath shut up all in unbeleefe that hee might have mercy upon all Then follows the exclamation ver 33. O the deepnesse of the riches both of the wisdome and knowledge of God for hee knows all courses possible to bee taken both wise and unwise and out of the depth of his wisdome makes choyce of what hee thinks fit O how unsearchable are his judgements for out of all these different courses results such a splendor of the glory of God as no creature till it bee revealed can project nor devise any courses countervailable thereunto when it is revealed and his wayes past finding out FINIS The English of the Latine passages in this Treatise in the severall Pages thereof that are not formerly englished PAge 10. lin 2 3 4. The Apostle saith that we are chosen in Christ as in a Mediatour by whose bloud salvation is procured for us lin 5. As touching the act of God choosing lin 17 18. as in the head The nature of an head is not the nature of a cause meritorious lin 19 20 21. The Apostle saith that we are elect in Christ as in a Mediatour by whose bloud life is precured for us l. 21. a meritorious cause lin 22 23 24. and as in an head from whence these good things are derived to us So that the reason of an head is the reason of a meritorious cause not morally but naturally l. 26. as in the head l. 27. as dead and raised again l. 37. Christ is the head of the predestinate Page 11. lin 5 6. The other reason concerning Christ considered as the head seemeth to depend on these parts Page 12. l. 5. a thing being by accident l. 28. Predestination puts nothing in the thing predestinated l. 31. in all things Page 13. lin 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15. By the comparing of which sentense it appeares that the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here rightly rendred among all It is a Greek phrase lest some one might conceive it ought to be translated in all to wit in all things We are to remember that the Apostle from this verse began to discourse of Christs kingdom in his Church which no man will deny if hee doth but lightly consider the very words themselves and therefore under the universall particle no other thing is comprehended but all believers of all times Christ is the first of them that rise again that among all the Saints both of them that went before and of them that came after he might have the primacy of dignity power and holinesse that so among all hee might have the preheminence not onely in respect of men but also of
communicating life and glory unto him Which to my judgement doth manifestly intimate that you acknowledge in God a purpose to communicate life and glory to Esau some way or other And if you did acknowledge a purpose in God not to communicate life and glory at all unto him this Aquinas confesseth and wee joyntly with Aquinas confesse that it is nothing lesse then to hate him For if God will have a man to bee and will not have him to bee saved surely hee will have him in the end to bee damned For in the end there will bee found no middle state equally remote from salvation and damnation But you doe in plain termes acknowledge a purpose in God to deale in justice with Esau and to give him life or death according to his works I presume you will not avouch this of all them that you account the world of mankinde For I doubt not but you will except Infants As for men of ripe years is it not as true of the elect as of those you call the men of the world that they shall bee dealt withall according to their workes I doe not say according to their deserts but according to their works keeping my self to your own phrase Hath not the Apostle professed 2 Cor. 5. 10. That wee must all appeare before the judgement seate of Christ that every man may receive the things which are done in his body according to that hee hath done whether it be good or evill But these works I confesse are different for either they consist in obedience or disobedience either to the Covenant of the Law or to the Covenant of Grace either to the Law of works or to a Law of Faith Now as for those whom you call the world of mankinde and concerning whom you professe God hath a purpose to judge them according to their works I demand whether your meaning is God wil judge them according to their works in reference to the Covenant of the Law or in reference to the Covenant of Grace If in reference to the Covenant of the Law then the meaning must bee this God hath a purpose to save them in case they perform exact obedience to his Law But in case they continue not in every thing that is writen in the book of the Law to doe it Gods purpose is to condemn them to everlasting death Now I appeale to every sober Christians judgement whether if God hath no purpose to save them but upon condition of such obedience and withall hath a purpose to damne them upon condition of such disobedience whether all things considered it may not bee more truely avouched that God hath a purpose to damne them but no purpose at all to save them If it bee spoken in reference to the Covenant of Grace I dispute against it first in the same manner The conditions of the Covenant of Grace on mans part being Faith and Repentance if God will not save them but upon condition of faith and repentance and will damne them in case of infidelity and impenitency then surely if it shall bee found that the men of this world are far more prone to infidelity and impenitency then unto faith and repentance it followeth that God purposeth rather to damne them then to save them But in case they are naturally carryed to infidelity and impenitency and have no power to beleeve in Christ and to break off their sinnes by true repentance then it followeth as well in respect of this Covenant of grace according whereunto God will deale with them as in respect of the former Covenant of the Law that God hath no purpose to save them but hath a purpose to damne them unto everlasting fire But so it is of all those whom you call the world of mankind namely that they have no power to believe in Christ or to break off their sinnes by repentance but are naturally carryed on unto infidelity and impenitency as I prove thus They that cannot discern the things of God but account them foolishnesse they cannot beleeve in Christ But such are all they whom you call the world of mankind for they are not regenerate and consequently they are meere naturals Now the naturall man as the Apostle speakes perceives not the things of God for they are foolishnesse unto him Again all such persons are still in the flesh Now the affection of the flesh is enmity against God is not subject to the Law of God neither indeed can bee Secondly I prove that God cannot deale with them whom you call the world of mankinde according to the Covenant of Grace For if hee should hee should save them all as I prove thus If whatsoever God requires by this covenant on mans part God undertakes to perform on his part then it is impossible but that all must bee saved with whom hee meanes to deale according to this covenant But whatsoever by this covenant God requires on mans part God himself undertakes to perform on his part as I prove thus First in generall God undertakes in this covenant to bee our Lord and our God to sanctifie us Therefore hee undertakes to give us faith and repentance Secondly in speciall and first doth God require at our hands that wee should love him with all our hearts and with all our soules God undertakes to perform this I will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy children that thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart and with all thy soule Doth God require at our hands that wee feare him And God also undertakes on his part to work us unto this Jer. 32. 40. And I will put my feare into their hearts that they shall never depart away from mee Doth God require Faith this also on his part hee performes Act. 2. ult God added to the Church dayly such as should bee saved And Philip. 1. 29. To you it is given to beleeve in him and to suffer for him Doth God require Repentance Even to this end God sent his Sonne to give repentance unto Israel and forgivenesse of sins In a word it is God that makes us perfect unto every good work to do his will working in us that which is pleasing in his sight through Jesus Christ Heb. 13. 21. Answ But in the second place it may bee argued that Gods raising up of Pharaoh to this intent to shew his power in his hardning and overthrow argueth the like hatred of Esau as of Pharaoh viz. a purpose of passing both by without communicating grace or glory unto them To which I answer a difference there is between Esau and Pharaoh though not in their finall condition nor in 〈◊〉 purpose concerning them Yet in the degree of their present estate whereunto they were severally come when God gave out his severall Oracles concerning them both for hee saith not of Pharaoh God raised him up to shew his power in his hardning and overthrow before hee had done good or evill as hee said of